

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
This morning the
President
Obama released the detailed fiscal year 2010 budget information on U.S.
bilateral AIDS programs and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and
Malaria. According to preliminary analysis by Africa Action, the U.S.
will be
under-funding life-saving HIV/AIDS initiatives in Africa.
Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director of Africa Action said today, "The
President is well-intentioned; however, more resources must be provided
for a
comprehensive and effective global health strategy. Without adequate
funding
for HIV/AIDS initiatives, the U.S. will forgo long-term savings in
cases where
we fail to prevent infections, and instead must place an increasing
number of
people on treatment."
In July of 2008 Congress authorized $48 billion for the President's
Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Over five years, the goal was to treat
at least
3 million people with HIV, preventing 12 million new infections, caring
for 12
million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children. It
was
also set to train and retain at least 140,000 new health workers.
To accomplish these goals PEPFAR would need $9 billion in 2010, but
according
to the new budget released today, it is only receiving $4.5 billion (a
2%
increase from 2009).
The FY2010 budget was revealed just days after the White House
announced a new
six-year "Global Health Initiative". Many people have already falsely
suggested
that funding for PEPFAR will be sustainable in light of the new Global
Health
Initiative, but Africa Action has found that either PEPFAR will not
reach its
target goals due to lower levels of funding in the five years
authorized or in
2014 many health programs will essentially stop because of a lack of
resources.
The plan allocates $51 billion for PEPFAR and Malaria, but over six
years
rather than five. If PEPFAR were fully funded at $48 billion, that
would leave
only $3 billion available in the budget for 2014.
Based on estimates on the total funding needed to achieve the
Millennium Development
Goals for maternal and child mortality, the U.S. needs to contribute
$24
billion over six years. The Global Health Initiative announced by the
administration includes only $12 billion for all non-AIDS, tuberculosis
and
malaria "global health priorities."
Michael Stulman, Associate Director for Policy and Communications
warns, "Millions
of lives could be unnecessarily lost because the U.S. will not fully
fund AIDS
programs. In the long run, a scale back in funding will result in a
greater
need for foreign assistance, and inequalities that will increase
conflict over
resources." Stulman adds, "People with HIV/AIDS need higher
quality and more affordable
medications for treatment. The U.S. has a responsibility to support
global
health priorities that can achieve this."
Equally susceptible to this funding shortfall is the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund needs $2.7 billion to prevent
cuts to
lifesaving grants, but according to the budget released this morning it
has
received exactly what it got last year - $900 million.
Announcements to short-change the Global Fund come just one day after
the
spring meeting in Geneva where the Board of Directors agreed to enhance
the
Fund's response to prevent mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT).
Africa Action welcomes this decision by the Board of Directors.
"By investing in reproductive health, the Global Fund is opening the
opportunity to eliminate HIV/AIDS," said LeMelle. "But
unfortunately,
the announcement came just before the White House announced it would
turned its
back on past promises made. President Obama needs to fulfill his
commitment and
ensure that the U.S. provides its fair share to the Global Fund."
Africa Action calls on the United States to contribute its
proportionate share
to the Global Fund by appropriating $2.7 billion in 2010, and an
additional $1
billion in 2009.
**Visit www.africaaction.org this week for full analysis of the FY2010
budget
**
Additional Resources for this story:
Africa
Action Talking Points on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and
Malaria
Obama's AIDS Plan, released during the campaign, can be found at
www.barackobama.com/pdf/AIDSFactSheet.pdf.
Africa Action is a national organization that works for political, economic and social justice in Africa. Through the provision of accessible information and analysis combined with the mobilization of public pressure we work to change the policies and policy-making processes of U.S. and multinational institutions toward Africa. The work of Africa Action is grounded in the history and purpose of its predecessor organizations, the American Committee on Africa (ACOA), The Africa Fund, and the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC), which have fought for freedom and justice in Africa since 1953. Continuing this tradition, Africa Action seeks to re-shape U.S. policy toward African countries.
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake."
A coalition of progressive groups is pressuring Senate Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton III to lead America's spy agencies over his role in helping the administration use the legal system to attack journalists.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Clayton, who currently serves as the US attorney for Manhattan, had issued subpoenas to four of its journalists after they'd reported on security concerns related to the luxury jet gifted by the Qatari government, which Trump has begun to use in place of Air Force One against the wishes of the Secret Service.
The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the goal of the investigation was to prosecute leakers who spoke to the press about the plane's lacking security features. According to the Times, the FBI requested that it hold off publishing the story and reveal the names of its anonymous sources, which it refused to do.
A top newsroom lawyer for the Times described the subpoenas as "an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
On Monday, the group Demand Progress and nearly three dozen other progressive advocacy groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
It urged them to oppose the nomination of Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence, a role previously held by Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned in May.
"The committee need not speculate how Clayton would exercise the enormous powers of the federal government: He is demonstrating it now," the coalition wrote. "A federal prosecutor who will weaponize the grand jury process against reporters—and their sources—to punish disclosures unwelcome to the president has shown the Senate the precise instinct that is disqualifying in a director of national intelligence."
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake," the letter continued.
The coalition emphasized that Clayton, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate is scheduled for Wednesday, has no experience in intelligence work, having spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. He was tapped to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term and then to serve as US attorney for the Southern District of New York in his second.
"More troublingly," it said, "Clayton has spent his time in this position weaponizing his authority on behalf of the president, particularly by politicizing high-profile investigations."
As Trump came under fire for his relationship with the late child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, Clayton was assigned to "take the lead" of a Department of Justice probe that selectively targeted a list of the president's enemies.
Clayton also oversaw the process of redacting files related to Epstein before their release to the public, which was met with criticism for including identifying information of abuse survivors, including nude photos, while blacking out the names of Trump and other prominent individuals despite a mandate from Congress.
The letter also notes Clayton's amplifying of Trump's debunked theories of election fraud in California as part of efforts to restrict mail-in voting, as well as his defense of Trump's $1.8 billion "slush fund," which a judge ruled this week constituted an improper act of self-dealing.
"We are living with the serious consequences of unqualified Trump loyalists, blindly pursuing the "MAGA" agenda at agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, and more," the letter concludes. "Adding the [intelligence community] to this list—especially in light of Clayton's shocking willingness to weaponize federal power to satisfy the president's political grievances... will have devastating consequences for our national security and the civil liberties of Americans."
A coalition of conservation groups sued the Trump administration in federal court on Tuesday over its move to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats.
"Since 1973, the ESA has served as the nation's most effective conservation law, saving numerous imperiled species from extinction and moving them toward recovery," states the complaint, filed in the District of Washington state. It argues that the rescission "defies the text and purpose of the statute, 50 years of administrative policy, and US Supreme Court precedent."'
The coalition is made up of the Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, and is represented by Earthjustice.
"Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles in a statement, also stressing that the decision conflicts with not only the ESA but also decades of legal precedent. "Now more than ever, imperiled fish, birds, and wildlife need protection to survive and recover."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at Sierra Club, warned that "without the habitat protections offered by the harm rule, countless species would be forced onto a path towards extinction."
For example, "roads built for logging and other human access destroy grizzly bear habitat and the bear's ability to safely use its habitat," said Swan View Coalition chair Keith Hammer. "Weakening the harm rule will allow industry to devastate the habitat grizzly bears and many other wildlife species depend on for their survival."
Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to not only grizzlies but also some of the other specific species that could be impacted by the administration's decision.
"It's beyond tragic that as the world's scientists warn us of an extinction crisis threatening to unravel our shared future, the Trump administration is yanking basic protections from our most endangered wildlife," Greenwald said. "There's just no way to protect endangered animals like spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears without protecting the places they live."
In fact, as Oregon Wild staff attorney John Persell, noted, "habitat loss is the leading driver of extinction."
"This gutting of the Endangered Species Act is part of a broader assault on our bedrock environmental values," Persell also emphasized. "From public lands to wildlife to clean air and drinking water, the Trump administration is determined to waste, loot, and pollute America's natural heritage."
Separately, the group Defenders of Wildlife sent a letter to the departments of Commerce and the Interior about its intent to sue over the ESA rescission, which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday by their respective agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The law has been clear for decades," said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Rescinding this definition is wholly out of bounds and misaligned with the vast majority of Americans who support protecting and recovering endangered species."
"We will use the full force of the law to fight back and prevent industry from unfettered destruction of critical forests, streams, deserts, oceans, and coastlines," Davenport pledged.
The rescission came just a day after President Donald Trump signed proclamations dramatically shrinking the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
As with Trump's repeated attacks on the ESA, his targeting of the two monuments dates back to his first administration.
Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that "gutting Utah’s national monuments to enrich polluting extractive corporations shows Trump's extreme disdain for Americans' shared natural heritage. It's a national embarrassment. These monuments protect some of America's most iconic landscapes and rich biodiversity. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future."
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," said US Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent oil prices back upward, and experts are warning that means more economic pain for working families in the coming months.
The price of Brent crude, which had fallen under $71 per barrel in late June after the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to wind down the conflict, has since surged back above $85 per barrel as of Tuesday, days after Trump declared the ceasefire between the two countries to be over.
Rising oil costs mean that the price of gasoline, which has similarly been dropping over the last month, will again start to rise. Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday projected that, based on the current surge in oil prices, the US is "days away" from seeing the average price of gas go back over $4 per gallon.
The renewed hostilities with Iran came amid signs of inflationary pressures in the US easing. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Tuesday showed consumer prices in June rose by less than expected, with lower energy prices delivering relief.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that while Tuesday's inflation data was positive news, the recent fighting between the US and Iran means it could be short-lived.
"Inflation remains high, is well above the Fed's target, and the ceasefire with Iran is over," Wolfers cautioned, referring to the Federal Reserve.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said the resumption of the illegal war would "continue hammering Americans’ budgets at home."
"Gas prices have already started to rise again and last month’s inflation data is stale," said Jacquez. "Trump’s debacle in the Middle East will have lasting, layered effects on our economy for months to come. Working families struggling to make ends meet should lay blame squarely on the president."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said the latest consumer price data show "it's still tough for middle-class and moderate-income Americans," as "inflation is wiping out wage gains for many."
More ominously, Long added, "The question is whether this relief is only temporary as the war in Iran restarts."
Project management professional Larry Boorstein warned Trump against spiking the football over the relatively tame inflation data from last month.
"Prices are down because oil prices dropped after the US-Iran MOU," Boorstein wrote. "Prices for food, both at home and away from home, increased, as did prices for shelter. Energy prices fell enough to more than offset increases in food and shelter prices. What's not so good is Trump declared the MOU dead July 8. Oil prices are ticking up again."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put the economic damage caused by the Iran war into perspective by noting that it has cost US consumers over $56 billion so far in the form of higher gas prices, or just under $500 per household.
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," wrote Lofgren.